CC.379/2020, dt.08-04-2025
CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT
District of:SPSR NELLORE
CALENDAR OF CASES TRIED BY THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF 1st CLASS :: SULLURPET :: SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT
Date ofDate ofofDateDate ofDate ofDate of offencereport/ApprehenofCommencclose ofsentence/ complaintsion ofrelease- ment oftrialorder accusede ontrial bail Prior to 15-10-2020----19-07-2204-02-2508.04.25 15-10-2020
Explanation for the delay and remarks: This case was taken on file on 30-12-2020 by this court. Due to accused summons pending and due to Covid-19, the case was posted for several adjournments. On 22-12-2021, on appearance of the accused Nos.1 to 3, copies of case documents were furnished to them. On 27-04-2022, A1 to A3 were examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C and posted for trial. On 19.07.2022, PW1 was examined and got marked EX.P1. Due to witness summons pending, the case was posted for several adjournments. On 27-06-2023, PW2 was examined. On 10-07-2023, PW3 was examined. On 15-11-2023, PWs.4 and 5 were examined. On 30-11-2023, PW6 was examined and got marked EXs.P2 and P3. Due to witness summons pending, the case was posted for several adjournments. On 31-01-2025, PW7 was examined. The evidence of LW2/Sadayan Murthy, LW7/Shermaraj Priya and LW8/Shanmugam Velumurugan was given up by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the prosecution evidence was closed. On 10-02-2025, A1 to A3 were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. On 02-04-2025, heard the arguments of both sides learned counsels. On 08.04.2025 judgment is pronounced. Hence the delay.
JUDGMENT IN CALENDAR CASE No.379/2020 ON THE FILE
ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1 st CLASS :: SULLURPET ::
SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT
Complainant : The Sub-Inspector of Police, Tada police station
Description of the Accused : 1. Sankar Ganesh @ Sadayan Ganesh, S/o. Sankar, aged about 33 years, 2nd Cross, NGO Nagar, Annai Therissa Street, Ponneri Town, Thivalluru District, Tamilnadu State.
2. Sankar Syamala @ Sadayan Shyamala, W/o. Sankar, aged about 49 years, 2nd Cross, NGO Nagar, Annai Therissa Street, Ponneri Town, Thivalluru District, Tamilnadu State.
1
CC.379/2020, dt.08-04-2025
3. Mathavan Syama Latha @ Latha, W/o. Mathavan, aged about 45 years, No.15, Vasanthakumari Ambhal Nagar, Perumal Theri, Vadakadumbadi, Thirukkaliundram, Kanchipuram District, Tamilnadu State.
Offence:U/Sec.498-A IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of D.P. Act.
Finding:Accused Nos.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the above said offences.
Sentence:In the result, accused Nos.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.498 of IPC and U/Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and they are acquitted of the same U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as required under Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. No order as to property as no property in this case.
Sd/- S. Anusha,
Addl. Judicial Magistrate of 1 st class, Sullurpet.
REMARKS From TheAdditionalJudicial
Magistrate of First Class,
SULLURPET
To The Hon’ble Chief Judl.
Magistrate-cum-Prl. Civil Judge
(Senior Division),
NELLORE
Calendar Case No.:CC.No.379/2020 Date of Judgment:08.04.2025 Date of Dispatch of: Calendar Dis. No. & Date: Date Received //True copy//
Addl. Judicial Magistrate of 1 st class,
Sullurpet.
2
CC.379/2020, dt.08-04-2025
APNE0F0005272020
Presented on : 21-12-2020 Registered on : 22-01-2021 Decided on : 08-04-2025 Duration : 4 years, 3 months, 18 days
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1 st
CLASS :: SULLURPET :: SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT
Present: Smt. S. ANUSHA,
Addl. Judicial Magistrate of 1 st class,
Sullurpet.
Tuesday, this the 08th day of April, 2025
C.C.No.379/2020
State: rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Tada Police Station … Complainant
V/s.
1. Sankar Ganesh @ Sadayan Ganesh, S/o. Sankar, aged about 33 years, 2nd Cross, NGO Nagar, Annai Therissa Street, Ponneri Town, Thivalluru District, Tamilnadu State.
2. Sankar Syamala @ Sadayan Shyamala, W/o. Sankar, aged about 49 years, 2nd Cross, NGO Nagar, Annai Therissa Street, Ponneri Town, Thivalluru District, Tamilnadu State.
3. Mathavan Syama Latha @ Latha, W/o. Mathavan, aged about 45 years, No.15, Vasanthakumari Ambhal Nagar, Perumal Theri, Vadakadumbadi, Thirukkaliundram,
Kanchipuram District, Tamilnadu State.... Accused 1 to 3
This case is coming for final hearing before me on 02.04.2025 in the presence of the learned Assistant Public prosecutor for complainant and of Sri T. Sudhakar Reddy, Counsel for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-
// J U D G M E N T //
1) The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Tada Police station filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 3 in Cr.No.132/2020 3
CC.379/2020, dt.08-04-2025
for the offence U/Sec.498-A of Indian Penal Code and Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act.
2) The case of prosecution as per charge sheet is that:
(i) The defacto-complainant/Sadayan Shanmuli gave report alleging that on 12-09-2018, LW2/Sadayan Murthy and LW3/Sadayan
Bhuvana performed her marriage with A1 in Sri Murugan Temple,
Andakuppam.
(ii) That at the time of engagement function, A1 to A3 demanded
LW2/Sadayan Murthy and LW3/Sadayan Bhuvana for cash of Rs.3 Lakhs, 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments, motor bike for A1 worth Rs.1 ½ Lakhs, household articles worth Rs.3 Lakhs towards dowry and LW2/Sadayan Murthy and LW3/Sadayan Bhuvana agreed and presented the same to A1 and A2 in the presence of both side elders.
(iii) After marriage, LW2/Sadayan Murthy and LW3/Sadayan
Bhuvana left LW1/Sadayan Shanmuli at the house of A1 in the joint family consisting A1 and A2 only and after marriage, A3 used to visit the house of
LW1/Sadayan Shanmuli frequently. When A1 was child, A2 discarded
LW4/Lokanadhan Sankar, her husband and living separately with A1. After four months of marriage of LW1/Sadayan Shanmuli with A1, A1 to A3 started to harass LW1/Sadayan Shanmuli by demanding her for additional dowry from her paternal house and due to unbearable harassment, LW1/Sadayan
Shanmuli informed the same to LW2/Sadayan Murthy over phone. On knowing the same, LW2/Sadayan Murthy and LW3/Sadayan Bhuvana along with LW5/Sangam Manohar and LW6/Sadayan Balaji visited the house of A1 but A1 to A3 did not allow them to talk and interact with LW1/Sadayan
Shanmuli. Finally, when LW1/Sadayan Shanmuli was carrying 8th month 4
CC.379/2020, dt.08-04-2025
pregnancy, on instructions of A2 and A3, A1 left LW1/Sadayan Shanmuli at her paternal house by threatening if she failed to bring additional dowry after the delivery, he will not allow her into the house and went away. Then
LW4/Lokanadhan Shankar, LW5/Sangam Manohar and LW6/Sadayan Balaji tried to set right the family life of LW1/Sadayan Shanmuli, but in vain and finally on 15-10-2020 at 11:00 a.m., LW1/Sadayan Shanmuli went to Tada P.S.
along with LW2/Sadayan Murthy, LW3/Sadayan Bhuvana and
LW4/Lokanadhan Sankar and lodged a complaint.
(iv) LW9/P. Krishna, HC 1801, Station House Officer, Tada P.S.
registered the report of LW1/Sadayan Shanmuli as a case in Cr.No.132/2020
U/Sec.498-A IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of DP Act-1961 of Tada P.S. on 15-10- 2020 at 11:00 a.m., examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, inspected the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of scene of offence. LW10/G. Venu, S.I. of Police, Tada P.S. served Sec.41-A Cr.P.C.
notice to A1 to A3 on 20-10-2020, received bail bonds and solvency certificates and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.
3)On 30-12-2020, this court took cognizance of offence against the accused Nos.1 to 3 punishable U/Sec.498-A of IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act and issued summons to the accused Nos.1 to 3.
4)On 22-12-2021, on the appearance of accused Nos.1 to 3 before this court, copies of documents as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. were furnished.
5)On 27-04-2022, A1 to A3 were examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. for the offences U/Sec.498-A of IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act were read over, explained to the accused Nos.1 to 3 in their vernacular language for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5
CC.379/2020, dt.08-04-2025
6)The prosecution to prove its’ case got examined LWs.1, 3, 6, 5, 4, 9 and 10 as PWs.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3. The evidence of
LW2/Sadayan Murthy, LW7/Shermaraj Priya and LW8/Shanmugam
Velumurugan was given up by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the prosecution evidence was closed. No witnesses were examined and no exhibits marked on behalf of the defence.
7) After completion of the prosecution evidence, on 10-02-2025, accused 1 to 3 were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating material appears against the accused in vernacular language, for which, they denied the offence and reported no defence evidence.
8)Heard the arguments on both sides.
9) Now the point for consideration is :
Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused
Nos.1 to 3 for the offence U/Sec.498-A IPC and Secs.3 and 4
of Dowry Prohibition Act beyond reasonable doubt?
POINT:- (A) Prosecution Case :-
10)The investigation in this case commenced on the report of PW1 which is marked as Ex.P1. The brief contents of Ex.P1 is that:-
PW1 got married to A1/Sadayan Ganesh of Ponneri town, Tiruvalluru
District, Tamilnadu State in the presence of elders and during the marriage, they gave 30 sovereigns of gold, Rs.3 Lakhs cash, one Avenger bike of Rs.1.5
Lakhs, articles of Rs.3 Lakhs to the mother-in-law of PW1/Sadayan Syamala and after marriage, PW1 went to her mother-in-law’s house at Ponneri and upto 4 months of her marriage, her husband and mother-in-law looked after her properly. After that, her mother-in-law/Syamala and her younger mother- 6
CC.379/2020, dt.08-04-2025
in-law/Latha harassed her mentally and physically and her husband became addicted to liquor and used to support them and asked her to bring additional dowry from her paternal house and in the meantime, she begotten with one girl child. When she was 8 months pregnant, her mother-in-law/Syamala, younger mother-in-law/Latha and her husband/Ganesh harassed her for dowry and left her at her paternal house. After delivery, while she was at her house, on listening to the words of her mother-in-law/Syamala and younger mother-in-law/Latha, her husband/Ganesh came and beat her. Thereafter, her village elders mediated many times but her mother-in-law and her husband told that they would live together only if dowry is given, otherwise he would give divorce and get married to someone else. Hence the report.
11) To substantiate the same the prosecution has examined Pws.1 to 7 listed witnesses and got marked Exhibit P1 to P3. PW1-the defacto- complainant, PW2 –the mother of PW1, PWs.3 and 4-the elders, PW5-the father of A1, PWs.6 and 7- Investigating Officers. Ex.P1 is the report of PW1,
Ex.P2 is the First information Report dt.15-10-2020 and Ex.P3 is the rough sketch of scene of offence.
12) The stand of accused is of total denial.
13) The learned Assistant public prosecutor argued that the evidence of
PW1 to PW7 and Ex.P1 clinchingly establishes that all the accused have committed the offence.
14) On the other hand, the learned defense counsel vehemently argued that the accused are falsely implicated in this case and they are innocent and argued that prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt so prays to acquit the accused A1 to A3 from charge.
15)In view of rival contentions of both sides, the entire evidence is 7
CC.379/2020, dt.08-04-2025
perused.
POINT Nos.1 and 2:- (B) Discussion and Analysis:
16)It is the contention of the prosecution that accused A1 to A3 harassed the defacto complainant and as such the accused are liable to be punished. In order to prove the same, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PW1 to PW7 coupled with contents of Exs.P1 to P3.
17) It is the case of PW1 that her marriage was performed with A1 on 12-09-2019 at Andakuppam Kovel in Ponneri and at the time of marriage, her parents gave 30 sovereigns of gold to her and gave cash of Rs.3 Lakhs, avenger bike of Rs.1,50,000/- and house hold articles worth of Rs.3 Lakhs to
A1. But as per the report of PW1, she mentioned that they have given 30 sovereigns of gold to her mother-in-law. Hence, there is inconsistency in her evidence regarding the gold ornaments. Further she deposed that after marriage, she joined her matrimonial home at Ponneri where A1, A2, father of
A2 and herself used to live there. But as per the contents of charge sheet, in the matrimonial house of PW1, only herself, A1 and A2 were present. Hence, there is a contradiction. PW1 further deposed that they lived happily for four months and later, the accused used to harass her for additional dowry, used to starve her for food and till eighth month of her pregnancy, accused continued the harassment. Then all the accused necked her out from the house and she went to her parent’s house and the accused stated that they will not allow her to join their house unless she met the additional dowry or else they will get A1 married for 2nd time. Whereas in the cross examination, she stated that she was not necked out from her matrimonial house and on perusal of contents of 8
CC.379/2020, dt.08-04-2025
charge sheet and report, it is observed that on instructions of A2 and A3, A1 left PW1 at her paternal house. She further deposed that after one month of delivery, the accused went to her parents’ house, demanded additional dowry and did not heed for mediation and A1 applied for divorce in Ponneri in the year 2020. Later, she gave a report to police under Ex.P1.
18)During the cross-examination, PW1 deposed that there is no prior relation between them and accused family before marriage and admitted that marriage expenses were shared equally by them and accused family and that she conceived within the first month after her marriage. She deposed that her father is fisherman and lives by fishing and admitted that her father-in-law never visited her matrimonial home. Whereas, in her Sec.161 Cr.P.C.
statement, she stated that while she was in her matrimonial house, her father- in-law used to come there and she used to tell her problems to him and also in her cross examination, she deposed that she has not stated to police that her father-in-law used to support her whenever accused demanded her for
additional dowry. Hence, there is inconsistency in her evidence. Further, she
deposed that there is proof that they gave Rs.3 Lakhs cash at the time of marriage but they have not obtained any receipt in token of amount given to the accused. She admitted that she lived in her matrimonial home for eight months and further admitted that prior to Ex.P1, she has not given any report in her matrimonial village or in Tada. She deposed that the accused demanded additional dowry whenever she returned home. She admitted that on the date of marriage, she wore artificial jewelry but not gold jewelry and adds that when she joined her matrimonial home, her mother gave her gold jewels and further admitted that no sreemantham was performed to her. She deposed that she gave birth to female child on 12-06-2019. The other part of 9
CC.379/2020, dt.08-04-2025
the cross examination, is the suggestions put supporting the defence version for which she denied.
19)Coming to the evidence of PW2, who is the mother of PW1, deposed that on 12-09-2018, PW1 got married to A1 at Andakuppam
Subramanyam Devalayam in Ponneri and they presented 30 sovereigns of gold, Rs.3 Lakhs Cash, one motor bike and house hold articles worth of Rs.3
Lakhs at the time of marriage and after marriage, PW1 joined with A1 in
Ponneri and they lived happily for four months. Later, PW1 became pregnant and came to her house in the eight month of her pregnancy. A1 to A3 used to harass and beat PW1 demanding additional dowry otherwise they will perform another marriage to A1. Whereas PW1 has not deposed about beating of the accused during her stay in her matrimonial house. Further, she deposed that after PW1 delivered the child in the nineth month, A1 visited their house and asked PW1 to bring additional dowry when she returns to her matrimonial home.
20)During the cross examination, PW2 deposed that prior to PW1’s marriage, there is no relationship between their families. But in the chief examination, she deposed that LW4/Lokanadh Sankar is her junior paternal uncle and on perusal of case on record, LW4 is father of A1. Hence, there is inconsistency in her evidence. She admitted that marriage expenses were shared by both families equally and further admitted that after one month of marriage, PW1 conceived. She deposed that there is no proof to show that they presented Rs.3 Lakhs cash at the time of marriage of PW1 with A1. But
PW1 deposed that there is proof that they have given Rs.3 Lakhs cash at the time of marriage and denied that they do not have any proofs. Hence, there is contradiction in the evidence regarding the proof of Rs.3 Lakhs cash. Further, 10
CC.379/2020, dt.08-04-2025
she admitted that her husband lives by doing fishing and one Manohar and
Balaji have witnessed presenting dowry and deposed that she gave bills of house hold articles to police but she does not know whether those bills were filed in the court or not. She deposed that PW1 gave birth to a child on 12-06- 2019 and admitted that PW1 lived with A1 and A2 for eight months only. She denied that on 20-08-2019, A1 came to her house along with his cousin/Yuvanesh but she again deposed that A1 himself kept his motor bike by keeping bike keys at the door frame of her house. Hence, it creates doubt, whether A1 came to the house of PW2 but she is deposing false. She deposed that she does not know whether A1 gave report to Tada Police against her and her husband on the same day i.e. on 20-08-2019 after getting treatment at government hospital but she admitted that A1 filed private complaint against her, her husband and PW1 as police did not take any action. Whereas, PW1 denied the said incident. Hence, there is contradiction in their evidence. Further, PW2 admitted that they received summons in
CC.No.373/2022 on the file of this court and they attended before this court.
She admitted that PW1 did not give any report to police during her stay at matrimonial house and deposed that she does not remember when police examined her but they examined her at her house.
21) Coming to the evidence of PW3 who is the cousin brother of
LW2/father of PW1, deposed that he attended the marriage of PW1 and A1 on 12-09-2018 at Subramanyam Temple in Andalakuppam of Ponneri and at the time of marriage, LW2/S. Murthy gave Rs.3 Lakhs, 30 sovereigns of gold, household articles worth Rs.3 Lakhs and one motor bike of Rs.1,50,000/-.
After marriage, PW1 joined A1 in Ponneri at her matrimonial home and lived with A1 about five to six months. But as per the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, 11
CC.379/2020, dt.08-04-2025
PW1 lived in her matrimonial house for 8 months. Hence, there is a contradiction. Further, he deposed that PW1 came to their village and she informed that A1 left her demanding additional dowry and PW1 also stated that if she fails to give additional dowry, A1 threatened her not to come back to her matrimonial home.
22)During the cross-examination, PW3 deposed that LW4/L. Sankar and LW5/S. Manohar are relatives of LW2/S. Murthy. But PWs.1 and 2 deposed that prior to the marriage of PW1 to A1, there is no prior relation between them and accused family and on perusal of case on record, LW4/L.
Sankar is the father of A1. Hence, there is a contradiction. Whereas, PW1 deposed that all the accused necked her out and she went to her parents house. Further, he deposed that he does not know what happened in the house of PW1 during her stay at A1 and he know that PW1 conceived during their wedlock and during 8th month of pregnancy of PW1, A1 brought PW1 to her parents’ house for delivery. He does not have any idea when PW1 gave birth to a female child and deposed that PW1 gave birth to a child in the hospital and he does not know whether the same was informed by LW2/
S. Murthy and PW2 to A1 or not. He does not know whether A1 along with his cousin, went to the house of PW1 on 20-08-2019 and when A1 questioned about non-informing of birth of female child, PW2 quarreled with A1. He does not know whether PW2 beat A1 and caused bleeding injury on his head and admitted that A1 left motor bike at the house of PW1. He was not present in the house of PW2 at the time of incident and he also does not know whether cousin of A1 got stitches on head and got issued wound certificate. He does not know whether LW2/S. Murthy stopped A1 while he was going on the way and beat him with hands and legs and when cousin of A1 came for rescue he 12
CC.379/2020, dt.08-04-2025
was also beaten up by LW2/S. Murthy with hands and legs. He deposed that
A1 approached police and gave report but the police did not accept his complaint and admitted that A1 filed private complaint in CC.No.373/2022 against LW2/S. Murthy, PW2 and one Jayakumar. Whereas, PW1 denied that the accused approached police station but as police did not take any action, he filed a private complaint and PW2 admitted that A1 filed private complaint against herself, her husband and PW1. Hence, there is contradiction in their evidence and there is no mentioning of the said Jayakumar in the evidence of
PWs.1 and 2. Further, he deposed that prior to the report in this case, no complaint was given by PW1. He does not have any idea, whether 30 sovereigns of gold were kept with PW1 and deposed that the presentations were not presented during the marriage day. Whereas in his chief examination, he deposed that at the time of marriage, household article, gold, bike and cash were given. Hence, there is inconsistency in his evidence. He deposed that prior to marriage date, the presentations were given during betrothal and does not know the date of engagement. He admitted that one civil petition is pending in Ponneri Court and does not know the nature of civil petition. He admitted that on the date of marriage, A1 was doing job and he does not know at present A1 left the job and also does not know whether
LW2/S. Murthy and PW2 did not send PW1 to her matrimonial home though
A1 did not restrain her. LW2/S. Murthy earns 10,000/- per month and he admitted that the family expenses of LW2 will be Rs.10,000/- per month and adds that LW2/S. Murthy gave dowry to A1 at the time of marriage by selling the property. From the above evidence of PW3, it is observed that PW3 has limited knowledge of the key incidents involved in the case and moreover, he fails to provide direct or reliable information on the alleged events. Therefore, 13
CC.379/2020, dt.08-04-2025
his testimony lacks evidentiary value and cannot be relied upon in support of the prosecution’s case.
23) PW4 deposed that on 12-09-2018, he attended a marriage of PW1 with A1 at Subramanyam temple in Andalakuppam of Ponneri Taluk, where he observed parents of PW1 gave 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments, cash of
Rs.3,00,000/-, one bike worth 1 ½ lakhs and Rs.3,00,000/- household articles.
After marriage, they put up their family at Ponneri and he came to know that
PW1 lived there happily for 4 months but later, PW1 went to her parents’ house and told him that A1 demanded Rs.15,00,000/- as additional dowry to by a plot. Then himself, LW4/L. Sankar and PW3 conducted mediation between A1 and PW1 but A1 stated that unless they give Rs.15 Lakhs, he will not take PW1 to matrimonial home and if they failed to give the said amount, he will get married second time.
24) In the cross examination, PW4 deposed that at the time of record- ing his statement he did not state to police that A1 demanded Rs.15 Lakhs as
additional dowry to buy plot. Also, PWs.1 to 3 have also not stated about the
amount of Rs.15 Lakhs demanded by A1 to buy a plot. Hence, it shows that
PW4 has added additional statements, which were not stated by anyone.
Further, he does not remember the month and exact date of mediation con- ducted by him, LW4/L. Sankar and PW3. He is unaware whether A2 is the wife of LW4/L. Sankar and only learned this from PWs 1 and 2. He also does not know that A2 and LW4 have been living separately for 10 years or that there are no talking terms between them. He also does not know if LW4/L.
Sankar attended the marriage of PW1 and A1 and he did not see him in the marriage. He deposed that A1 and A2 did not ask him to conduct the alleged mediation between them and PWs.1 and 2. He does not know the value of 14
CC.379/2020, dt.08-04-2025
gold ornaments allegedly presented by the parents of PW1 to A1 and deposed that he has not seen the household articles allegedly presented to A1.
Whereas in the chief examination, he deposed that at the time of marriage, he observed that the parents of PW1 gave 30 sovereigns of gold and household articles of worth Rs.3,00,000/-. Hence, there is inconsistency in his evidence.
He deposed that LW2/S. Moorthy lives by fishing which is not possible every- day and it is difficult for them to present the above said items but also denied that as a fisherman, he has no capacity to present the said dowry. Hence, there is inconsistency in his evidence. He does not know who spent the mar- riage expenses and whether LW2/S. Moorthy brought PW1 at eight month of pregnancy for delivery. He admitted that accused are having their own plot and house. He further admitted that PW1 gave birth to the female child but he does not know the same and he also does not know whether PWs.1 and 2 informed the same to the accused. He does not remember the exact date when police examined him but stated that police examined him at Tada P.S.
From the above evidence of PW4, it is evident that the witness is not fully aware of the material facts surrounding the case and his deposition lacks consistency and does not corroborate the prosecution’s version of events.
Therefore, his evidence is not of any substantial probative value and cannot be relied upon to support the case of the prosecution.
25)Coming to the evidence of PW5, who is father of A1, deposed that on 12-09-2018 at Subrmanyam Temple in Andalakuppam of Ponneri Taluk,
PW1 got married to A1. He was not invited to the same by the accused but he went to their marriage. Whereas, PW4 deposed that he did not see him in the marriage of PW1 and A1. Further, he does not know about the ornaments and gifts presented at the time of marriage as he did not go inside the house. He 15
CC.379/2020, dt.08-04-2025
came to know that A1 and A2 necked out PW1 from the matrimonial house.
After PW1 gave birth to a female child, he went to the house of PW1 to see the child and then he came to know that at the time of marriage, parents of
PW1 gave 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments, cash of Rs.3 Lakhs, one bike of worth Rs.1 ½ Lakhs and Rs.3,00,000/- house hold articles. But on perusal of contents of Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1 and cross examination of PW5, it is observed that PW5 used to visit the house of A1 and A2 during the stay of
PW1 at her matrimonial house and he used to advice A1 and A2 not to harass her for additional dowry. This raises doubt as to how he claims to have no knowledge of the dowry items given at the time of marriage till his visit to the house of PW1 after the birth of her child. Himself, LW2/S. Murthy and PW4 tried to conduct mediation between accused and PW1, but in vain. So, they tried to conduct mediation in his village, but the villagers did not come forward to do mediation as the matter does not belong to their village.
26)In the cross examination, PW5 deposed that he was examined by
Tada Police but cannot remember the exact date. He deposed that at the time of recording of his statement, he has not stated to police that he has informed the alleged incident to his villagers to conduct mediation but they did not come forward as the matter does not belong to their village. He deposed that he went to the house of A1 to speak to them, but he cannot remember the date and year. He admitted that A2 and himself are living separately for about 10 years and he is residing at Prayalkadu whereas A2 is residing at Ponneri and further admitted that their marriage was performed 35 years ago and they have one daughter and one son but also deposed that LW7/Sharmarjan Priya is not her own daughter. He admitted that when her daughter and would be son-in-law were about to get married, her daughter came along with him and 16
CC.379/2020, dt.08-04-2025
from there, himself and his wife are living separately and in that year, he performed her daughter’s marriage. He admitted that he has a habit of drinking alcohol and further admitted that he was informed by PWs.1 and 2, that PW1 was necked out from the matrimonial house. He admitted that A2 went to their village elders and requested them to settle the matter about 4 years ago. He admitted that the house site where A1 and A2 were living was purchased by his father-in-law and given to A2 and the house was constructed by A1. From the above evidence of PW5, it creates doubt whether he is deposing false at the instance of his strained relationship with A2 as pointed out by the defence counsel.
27)PW6, who is one of the official, deposed that on 15-10-2020 at about 11:00 a.m., while he was present in the police station, PWs.1 and 2 and
LW2/S. Murthy, came to the station and gave a report against A1 to A3 and basing on the same, he registered a case in Cr.No.132/2020 U/Secs.498-A,
Secs.3 and 4 of D.P. Act under Ex.P2/FIR and submitted the FIR to all concerned officials. He examined and recorded the statements of PWs.1 and 2 and LW2/S. Murthy in the police station, went to Ponneri Village, examined and recorded the statements of PWs.3 to 5, LW7/S. Priya, LW8/S.
Velumurugan, prepared Ex.P3/rough sketch of scene of offence and handed over the entire case to his superior LW10/S.I.
28)In the cross examination, PW6 admitted that PWs.1 and 2 only speak Tamil Language and cannot speak in Telugu but he denied that PWs.1 and 2 gave statements in Tamil but not in Telugu. Hence, there is inconsistency in his evidence. Further, he admitted that the report was written by receptionist of the police station and signed by PW1 in English. He adds that after examining PWs.1 and 2 and LW2/S. Murthy, he registered the FIR 17
CC.379/2020, dt.08-04-2025
and the same was not produced before this court. But on perusal of case on record, it is observed that the FIR was produced before this court on 16-10-2021. He deposed that he did not investigate and it came to his knowledge about the father of LW7/S. Priya. He admitted that
Balakrishnapuram is fisherman’s village and except them no other resides there. He admitted that PWs.1 and 2 did not produce any receipts or bills to show regarding Rs.3,00,000/- cash, gold ornaments, house hold articles and bike worth Rs.1,50,000/- and also deposed that they have not mentioned the value of house articles to him. Further, he deposed that when he asked PWs.1 and 2 to produce the documents relating to the gifts, they informed that they produced but later informed that they did not produce. But, as per the evidence of PW2, she deposed that she gave bills of house hold articles to the police but she does not know whether those bills were filed in the court or not.
Hence, there is a contradiction in their evidence. He deposed that PW1 lead marital life with A1 for four months. But on perusal of contents of report, charge sheet and evidence of PWs.1 and 2, it is observed that PW1 lived in matrimonial home for eight months. Hence, there is a contradiction. He deposed that PWs.1 and 2 did not inform him that marriage expenses were shared equally by the accused and PW2. He admitted that father of PW1 is only a fisherman and that only few days, he can do fishing trade and that he has no other business and no source of income. He deposed that he does not have any idea about the value of gold ornaments and whether at the time of marriage of PW1, the gold rate was Rs.40,000/- per sovereign and as per the gold presented by PW1, the total value is Rs.12,00,000/-. He also does not know whether the said gold ornaments presented to PW1 or A1 and when
PW1 gave birth to a child. He denied that on 20-08-2019, when A1 and his 18
CC.379/2020, dt.08-04-2025
cousin Yuvnesh came to police station and gave a complaint about PW2. But,
PW2 admitted that A1 filed private complaint against her, her husband and
PW1 as police did not take any action. Hence, there is contradiction in their evidence. He does not know whether they filed private complaint before this court in C.C.No.373/2022 and whether A1 filed one HMOP case against PW1 in Ponneri Matrimonial court for divorce and also does not know whether A1 and his cousin Yunnesh got treatment in Ponneri Government Hospital and obtained wound certificate from doctor. He denied that A1 is habituated to drinking alcohol regularly. Whereas PW1 denied that A1 is not addicted to bad vices like drinking liquor. Hence, there is contradiction in their evidence. He does not know about the ornaments wore by PW1 at the time of marriage and denied that PW1 wore artificial jewelry at her marriage. But, PW1 herself admitted that she wore artificial jewelry but not gold jewelry. Hence, it creates doubt whether they have done table investigation without proper enquiry as pointed out by the defence counsel.
29)Coming to the evidence of PW7, who is the then, S.I. of Police,
Tada P.S., deposed that he received entire case material of this case from
PW6, conducted further investigation and on 20-10-2020 at about 11:00 a.m., while he was present in the police station, three persons came and surrendered before him and disclosed their identity particulars and after conforming their involvement in this case, he served Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. notices to them by accepting sureties and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.
30)In the cross examination, PW7 admitted that he verified the investigation done by PW6 and further admitted that he has not examined any witnesses as they were already examined by PW6. He deposed that at the 19
CC.379/2020, dt.08-04-2025
time of surrender of A1 to A3, A1 never informed him about the assault committed against him and his cousin/Yuvanesh by PWs.2 to 5 and further deposed that the accused and PW1 belonged to fisherman community but he does not know whether there is no practice of giving or taking dowry or there is demand of dowry in their community and due to affection on bride, they presented some house hold articles i.e. almirah and cot. He could not say the worth of alleged presented gold articles, cash and household articles. He does not know LW2/father of PW1 earns Rs.10,000/- per month approximately as such he is having no capacity to provide the said articles and also volunteers that they never investigated about the income of parties. He also does not know whether A1 has motorcycle before marriage. He volunteers that A1 dropped PW1 at her parents house. He does not know whether PWs.1 to 5 are unaware of Telugu language and whether their statements were recorded in Tamil but volunteers that statements of PWs.1 to 5, were recorded in Telugu
Language and the same was filed. Hence there is inconsistency in his evidence. Further, he admitted that there were no Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statements in Tamil Language in the charge sheet. He admitted that PW1 was never necked out by the accused. But according to the report and evidence of PW1, she deposed that the accused necked her out from her matrimonial house. He does not know whether Ex.P1 was prepared at the police station through one receptionist of Tada P.S. and also advised for insertion of Sec.498-A IPC and
Secs.3 and 4 of D.P. Act and obtained her signature. From the above evidence, it creates doubt whether they conducted table investigation in this case or foisted false case against the accused.
31) The learned Assistant Public prosecutor submitted that the evidence of PW1 to PW7 clinchinghly established that the accused A1 to A3 20
CC.379/2020, dt.08-04-2025
committed the offence and the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under Section 498 A of Indian Penal Code and under section 3 and 4 of DP act beyond all reasonable doubt.
32)On the other hand, the learned defence counsel argued that there is no proof provided by prosecution to show that the accused has committed the offence and submitted that PW1 to PW7 are related and interested witnesses and their evidence is full of omissions and contradictions and so, in the absence of support of independent witnesses, their evidence cannot be relied upon. He further submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish that A1 has maintained illegal intimacy with one woman and A1 together with
A2 and A3 has subjected Pw1 to cruelty by demanding Pw1 for additional dowry.
33) In view of these rival contentions, the entire evidence is perused
34) In order to establish the guilt of the A1 to A3 under section 498-A of
IPC, the prosecution shall establish that A1 being the husband of PW1, A2 and A3 being the relatives of A1 with common intention committed cruelty against PW1 with a demand of additional dowry, beat her.
35)Before adverting to the main discussion, it is pertinent to look into section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
Section 498A:- Husband or relative of husband of a woman
subjecting her to cruelty “Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.”
Sec.3. Penalty for giving or taking dowry.— (1) If any person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he 21
CC.379/2020, dt.08-04-2025
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years, and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more:Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than five years.
(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to, or in relation to,—
(a) presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bride (without any demand having been made in that behalf):Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act;
(b) presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bridegroom (without any demand having been made in that behalf):Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act:Provided further that where such presents are made by or on behalf of the bride or any person related to the bride, such presents are of a customary nature and the value thereof is not excessive having regard to the financial status of the person by whom, or on whose behalf, such presents are given.
Sec.4. Penalty for demanding dowry.—
If any person demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees:Provided that the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months.
36) So far as the charge under section 498- A of IPC against A1 to A3 is concerned, in order to bring home the guilt of A1 to A3 for the said offence, the prosecution has to prove the following ingredients :
(i) That the husband/A1 or the relatives of the husband subjected PW1 to cruelty i.e., 22
CC.379/2020, dt.08-04-2025
(a) subjecting her to such a willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive PW1 to commit suicide or to cause injury, or
(b) by demanding PW1 or her relatives to get additional dowry.
37)The evidence presented by PWs.1 to 7 reveals several inconsistencies and contradictions that weaken the prosecution’s case. PW1 made conflicting statements about being necked out of her matrimonial home.
PW1 stated in her report that A1 came her house after the birth of the child and beat her. But the same was not mentioned in her chief. Both PWs.1 and 2 denied any prior relationship with the accused family before the marriage of
PW1 with A1, yet PW2 admitted that LW4/A1’s father, is her younger paternal uncle. PW2 also deposed to have submitted receipts of household articles, which was denied by the police. PWs.3 and 4, who are elders, lacked proper knowledge of the events and their evidence were inconsistent, offering no substantial support to the prosecution’s case. PW5’s evidence raised doubts that he might be supporting PW1 possibly due to his strained relationship with
A2 and also he denied knowledge of the items presented as dowry at the time of marriage despite having frequently visited the house of A1 and A2 while
PW1 was residing there which creates doubt on his version. It was stated that marriage expenses were equally shared by both families.
38) Furthermore, the learned defence counsel argued that PW1’s family did not inform A1 about the birth of the child, which led A1 filing for divorce.
Though PW2 denied that A1 came to her house along with his cousin/Yu- vanesh on 20-08-2019, she later admitted that A1 left his motorbike keys at the door, casting doubt on her statement.The investigation appears as table investigation, with PW6 admitting the report was prepared by a receptionist 23
CC.379/2020, dt.08-04-2025
and PW1 only signed it. PW1 is unaware of Telugu Language and Ex.P1/re- port is in Telugu but the name of the person who translated report’s contents to PW1 is not mentioned. PW7 failed to verify the incomes of both parties, and both PWs.6 and 7 were unaware of the value of dowry, private complaint filed by the accused and the HMOP case filed by A1 for divorce. They also not mentioned about the incident on 20-08-2019 and lacked information on any wound certificates of A1 and his cousin Yuvanesh. It also came to light during arguments that PW1 and A1 are presently living together, raising further doubts on the prosecution’s claims. All prosecution witnesses appear to be interested witnesses and no independent witnesses were examined, and notably, PW1’s father was not examined. PW4’s claim that Rs.15 lakhs was demanded for a plot through harassment but the same is not mentioned in the report or in other evidences. There are no direct witnesses to the alleged ha- rassment to PW1 by A1 to A3, and the prosecution failed to examine any neighbors or independent witnesses near the residence of A1 and A2 to sup- port the claims of harassment. The evidence regarding the giving of dowry is inconsistent and unclear. PW1 stated that the gold was given as dowry when she joined her matrimonial home, while PWs.1 to 4 claimed that gold, household items, a bike, and ₹3 lakhs cash were given at the time of marriage. However, PW3 contradicted this by saying the items were presented during the engagement, not on the wedding day. Further, the learned counsel for A1 to A3 filed a memo along with counter submitted by
PW1 in HMOP No.312/2019 filed by A1 and in the 2nd para of the counter
PW1 mentioned that her parent’s given 30 sovereigns of gold, other household articles and motorcycle, all worth Rs.2,75,000. But, they have not mentioned about cash of Rs.3 Lakhs and about the household articles of 24
CC.379/2020, dt.08-04-2025
worth Rs.3 Lakhs. Further, HMOP is field in the year 2019 whereas, this case is filed in the year 2020. This clearly shows that they filed this case for a counterblast. The same was admitted in her chief. This weakens the prosecu- tion’s case and raises doubts about the credibility of the allegations.
39) While summoning up of entire evidence of Pws.1 to 7, it is noticed that nowhere either by defacto-complainant/PW1 or the other witnesses has deposed about the cruelty or harrassment but through out evidence and depositions ran on the aspect of dowry and additional dowry. In order to prove the same, the prosecution has not filed or not brought any relevant documents or receipts regarding purchase of gold ornaments as alleged etc., to prove out their version. Hence, undoubtedly the prosecution failed to prove that A1 to A3 have taken dowry as alleged and also demand for additional dowry. In order to disprove the same, the learned defence counsel has put forth suggestions to the PW1 and witnesses and PW1 stated that she has filed the receipts before the police but the same was not put forth before their court by the prosecution. Hence prosecution failed to prove Sections 3 and 4 connect’s to the accused.
40) Coming to Sec.498-A of IPC, in order to constitute the offence un- der this section, there must be cruelty and unbearable harrassment. But the same was not proved by the prosecution and nowhere the topic of harrass- ment is discussed by the witnesses. Hence the prosecution also failed to prove that accused committed the offence under this section.
For the above discussion, the prosecution failed to bring sufficient evidence and failed to bring home the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
25
CC.379/2020, dt.08-04-2025
41)In the result, accused Nos.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.498 of IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and they are acquitted of the same U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as required under Sec.437-A
Cr.P.C. No order as to property as no property in this case.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 08th day of April, 2025.
Sd/- S. Anusha,
Addl. Judicial Magistrate of 1 st class, Sullurpet.
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for prosecution:- P.W.1 : Shanmugi P.W.2 : Bhuvana P.W.3 : Balaji Sadayan P.W.4 : S. Manohar P.W.5 : Lokanatham Shankar P.W.6 : P. Krishna, Head Constable, Tada P.S. P.W.7 : G. Venu, the then, SI of Police, Tada P.S.
Witnesses examined for defence:- None
Exhibits marked for prosecution:- Ex.P.1:- Report of PW1. Ex.P.2:- FIR dt.15-10-2020 in Cr.No.132/2020 U/Sec.498-A of IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of D.P. Act Ex.P.3:- Rough Sketch of scene of offence.
Exhibits marked for defence:- Ex.D1:- Lines 19 to 22 of Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW5.
Material objects marked for prosecution:- --Nil--
S. Anusha, Addl. Judicial Magistrate of 1 st class, Sullurpet. //True copy//
Addl. Judicial Magistrate of 1 st class,
Sullurpet.
26